Wednesday, August 01, 2012

“Building a new stadium down the street does not work unless (Ron) Lancaster spilled some DNA in the lot where they’re going to build the new stadium,” he added. “You have to refurbish (Mosaic Stadium). You’ve got to can all new ideas you might have and use the sacred ground. Fenway did that and that is why Fenway is loved. The new Yankee Stadium isn’t the same as it used to be.”

The former Boston Red Sox and Montreal Expos pitcher will not be running for the vacant mayor’s position in Regina later this year. With his opinion on the new stadium, he wasn’t sure he would garner many votes anyway. But that is nothing new to the former member of the Rhinoceros Party. Lee ran on the Rhino ticket in 1988 for president of the United States. Not surprisingly, he didn’t make the ballot in a single state. He said one of the high-ranking members within the party gave him a six-pack of Molson Canadian and asked him to run for president.

“I adhered to their funny philosophy,” Lee said. “My campaign slogan was ‘No guns, no butter. They’ll both kill you.’ And I only campaigned in federal prisons where I knew they couldn’t vote, and I only accepted a quarter in campaign contributions.”

With it being an election year in the U.S., Lee said he is all in for the re-election of Barack Obama.

“The only time (Mitt) Romney opens his mouth is when he needs to change feet,” Lee said of the Republican nominee. “If Obama does lose this, which I can’t see happening, then it’s because of a lady in Florida who works for Jeb Bush and Diebold, the voting-machine company. If Obama even comes close to losing this election, it’ll be fraud.”

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

And you believe Gorbachev would have staked out the same positions had the USSR had the upper hand militarily vis-a-vis the U.S.? That seems laughable.

Without Reagan spending all that money on crap like missle defense the USSR would not have had the upper hand militarily versus the US and its allies. His military buildup accomplished very little other than spending money - which did result in some fiscal stimulus, but not very efficient stimulus.

You're arguing, so far, that there is a plausible logic under which the good dataset is valid and the bad dataset is invalid. I agree that it's plausible. I don't think it's likely, and I am vigilant against presuming good news about things that are facts without lots of evidence.

I am not trying to do so. My point really was a simple one - I don't think that essay of his was very good. I think there are much better ways of arguing the need to look at both state and national polls than he did. I am in general a fan, but I remember being dissapointed by the "less goodness" of that entry.

I completely agree with you (and even stated a bit earlier) that both state and national polls need to be looked at. And as a Democrat I give special emphasis to bad news :)

I suspect if I went back I could re-word what I said to be less ... whatever ... but I really was not trying to dis Nate or your point or even national polling.

Quite the opposite... the tax burden has shifted noticeably onto the middle class. One need only trace the changes in cap gains taxes to see that, never mind actually reviewing the data from TPI, etc. It grows even more stark if you look at the complete tax burden (i.e., factor in state and local taxes).

Over 50 percent of U.S. households pay no federal income taxes whatsoever, but somehow the tax burden has been shifted onto the middle class?

I am not the biggest Reid fan, but the way he has derailed the Romney campaign the last week is pretty funny.

Zonk:

He really is landing haymakers... Is he lying? Don't know, don't care -- all I know is that Romney surrogates are now in outrage overdrive, all the while, keeping the very issue above the fold when everyone with two functioning neurons knows that there's a very, very, very easy way for Romney himself to settle the question.

--------

Bitter Mouse:

It has basically put Romney in a no win situation. Continue to refuse to release the tax returns and look weak and guilty, and have the conversation pulled away from what you want. Or release the tax returns and look weak and have whatever it was you are trying to hide come out.

Re-read the above while pretending the statements relate to Obama's birth certificate and are coming from the birthers. It's a hoot.

Re: #795--
I don't know what number to apply to either candidate's chances, but I think it's clear that Romney now needs a succession of things to go right for him, not merely one or two. I don't think this is a new development, and I think a lot of Republican strategists don't think so, either -- which is why we saw the B-team going for the 2012 nomination while its presumptively superior candidates are keeping their powder dry.

Republicans have to hope this election is a replay of 1980, in which the two candidates were neck and neck in October according to polling before things broke sharply for Reagan. The GOP's problem is that Romney isn't Reagan.

Earlier in this thread, I wrote that the best parallel I see is the 1948 race: a tanking economy, a Democratic president with low favorability, a dapper GOP opponent hoping to vague his way to victory because he thinks everybody hates the incumbent, while forgetting that nobody likes him. The GOP's problem is that their Tom Dewey doesn't even have a lead to lose, and that Obama isn't exactly in the shadow of Franklin Roosevelt.

The best part of this exchange is the assumption by Joe, the rock solid without a doubt never crossed his mind assumption, that economic interests = tax burden, where low is good and high is bad. There is no other barometer. Real income? Income equity? Estimated current and future total tax burden? Inflation? Solvency of future entitlments? Bankruptcy rates? Health care outcomes? Retirement?

None of that matters. Low tax rates = economic interests. Ladies and gentlemen we have the perfect summary of the current GOP and the rulership of Grover and his pledge. Awesome.

Without Reagan spending all that money on crap like missle defense the USSR would not have had the upper hand militarily versus the US and its allies. His military buildup accomplished very little other than spending money - which did result in some fiscal stimulus, but not very efficient stimulus.

What is Obama proposing with regards to any of the above? Obama wants more and more immigration, which puts downward pressure on income, especially at the lowest skill levels. Obama is printing money like crazy, which will affect inflation. Solvency of future entitlements? LOL.

Joe seems to be endorsing what appears to be the Romney campaign's view: Our base is more energized than their base, and swing voters are going to swing to us because Obama is the incumbent and the economy is bad. Therefore, if we don't screw up, we win. Just hold the ball.

Absent economic catastrophe in the next three months, I think that's plain old wrong, because Obama isn't sufficiently unpopular (plus the 1 or 2% effect of Romney being a less likeable personality.) But who knows. I am a liberal elite in New York City, after all, so I may not exactly have my finger on the pulse. And people spending literally billions of dollars in an attempt to rule the world¹ are going with this strategy. So I guess one has to assume there may be something to it.

Re-read the above while pretending the statements relate to Obama's birth certificate and are coming from the birthers. It's a hoot.

Except you know the part where the situations are not the same at all. When Democrats start calling on more investigations of Obamas birth certificate, like members of the GOP like George Will, Haley Barbour and others have suggested Romney release his tax returns, then get back to me.

The birth certificate thing was always a sideshow for nutcases. No one credible ever bought into that. Releasing tax returns has been a tradition for a while now. The best part is Romney's father did it. And Mitt Romney released his tax returns to the McCain campaign.

Plus I don't know what is in his tax returns. I think it great politics to hammer Romney for not releasing them though (and most people agree with that). The birthers really believe Obama was born in Kenya or some such silliness, and no one credible ever thought it was a winning issue, and it turns out it wasn't.

I'm looking for a list of all presidents who were under 50 percent approval in April (or June or August) of an election year who went on to win reelection.

Well, go look for one, then. It shouldn't take long since just eight presidents have been reelected since the nation's centennial, and fewer than that served during the time of approval ratings, and fewer than that have been under 50% in the last August of their first terms. Bit of a data point issue there. (*)

But I can tell you that such a thing has never happened since the most recent time it could have happened (2004).

(*EDIT: plus three more if you count Teddy Roosevelt, Truman, and Lyndon Johnson, who were not "re" elected.)

Without Reagan spending all that money on crap like missle defense the USSR would not have had the upper hand militarily versus the US and its allies. His military buildup accomplished very little other than spending money - which did result in some fiscal stimulus, but not very efficient stimulus.

FWIW, I actually tend to agree more with the common perception that Reagan's arm race hastened the Soviet demise -- I think it was inevitable by the 1980s that the USSR was doomed, but it largely comes down to whether you really believe deficits matter (in which case, we should have just waited them out) or not.

I was pretty fascinated by the USSR as a teen - folks might remember Samantha Smith - much to my Reagan Democrat parent's chagrin, I was enthralled by her letter and later trip to the USSR. For a fair bit of the 80s, I very much wanted to visit the eastern bloc myself -- I was no communist by any stretch, but I also couldn't fathom the concept of two nations of hundreds of millions seriously considering blasting each other to dust over ideology.

Now... I do think there's a chance that Gorbachev, absent the Warsaw Pact collapse, had a non-zero chance of essentially putting the USSR on what is essentially China's path towards a quasi-communist-with-capitalist-tones system. Gorbachev was no Andropov, no Brezhnev, and no Chernenko.

He was a legitimate reformer, making his party bones doing extensive modernization with farming collectives and doing things like expanding private plots. The same was true of the much more radical Boris Yeltsin - before he became something of a drunken rabble rouser (and I say that in the kindest way possible), he was likewise a true reformer.

There were elements of reform within the Soviet - and Gorbachev's elevation was part and parcel of that element.

Obama wants more and more immigration, which puts downward pressure on income, especially at the lowest skill levels. Obama is printing money like crazy, which will affect inflation.

Credible studies have shown that the net impact of immigration is higher income, though there is in fact some pressure on the lowest income levels. Of course the lowest income levels are more vulnerable to basically everything - which is why I would argue for policies like immigration and carbon cap and trade which do cause some "creative destruction" combined with a stronger safety net to help out those impacted.

The statement "Obama is printing money like crazy" is wrong on many levels. Are you talking about expanding the money supply (and if so which one) or are you talking about the deficit?

Re-read the above while pretending the statements relate to Obama's birth certificate and are coming from the birthers. It's a hoot.

Sure, except --

- Obama HAS released his birth certificate
- The idea that a very rich individual paid no taxes is perfectly plausible when you look at say... GE being a multi-billion dollar company that's highly profitable, but manages to come up with a zero tax bill

But yeah - other than the fact the documentation in question HAS been released and the scenario laid out can be easily seen in other circumstances, it's the exact same thing!

Credible studies have shown that the net impact of immigration is higher income, though there is in fact some pressure on the lowest income levels.

Right, and the lowest income levels are already having the toughest time, correct? So why is Obama advocating for something that will have a deleterious effect on a major part of his constituency?

Of course the lowest income levels are more vulnerable to basically everything - which is why I would argue for policies like immigration and carbon cap and trade which do cause some "creative destruction" combined with a stronger safety net to help out those impacted.

"Cap and trade" as a means to help low-skilled, low-income workers. It's like The Onion around here.

***

It wasn't very efficient stimulus because unlike today, we weren't in a liquidity trap and interest rates were not at the zero lower bound.

Over 50 percent of U.S. households pay no federal income taxes whatsoever, but somehow the tax burden has been shifted onto the middle class?

But they do pay payroll taxes, we have been deficit spending (which is financed by SS trust funds to a large degree - much larger than Chinese borrowing, for example), they also pay state taxes, they likewise pay gas taxes, etc.

Right, and the lowest income levels are already having the toughest time, correct? So why is Obama advocating for something that will have a deleterious effect on a major part of his constituency?

Because he is president of the whole nation, and with a strong safety net the negative impact is minimized while the positive is still gained by the nation as a whole.

"Cap and trade" as a means to help low-skilled, low-income workers. It's like The Onion around here.

Now you are acting like the Romney campaign. I never said nor implied Cap and trade was to help workers. I said it was "creative destruction". In fact it, like many changes, will negatively impact the lower income brackets, because once more ... pretty much everything does. Which is why we need to have a strong safety net so we can enact needed changes and still cushion the blow to those most vulnerable.

Of course the lowest income levels are more vulnerable to basically everything - which is why I would argue for policies like immigration and carbon cap and trade which do cause some "creative destruction" combined with a stronger safety net to help out those impacted.

"Cap and trade" as a means to help low-skilled, low-income workers. It's like The Onion around here.

Because I'm a firm believer that conversations go so much better when people have points of agreement, I feel I should point out that Bitter Mouse is actually agreeing with you here. Cap and Trade and immigration are harmful to low-income segments of the population. So he's advocating other policies to also be applied to help out.

But they do pay payroll taxes, we have been deficit spending (which is financed by SS trust funds to a large degree - much larger than Chinese borrowing, for example), they also pay state taxes, they likewise pay gas taxes, etc.

Payroll taxes are to fund a future entitlement. Unless you want Social Security to become even more of a welfare program, then counting payroll taxes as "tax burden" is illogical.

I know you have a preternatural fear of actual data, but the numbers say that the tax burden has shifted markedly onto the middle class over the last 30 years... In effect, the burden that the middle class hasn't been able to pick up has simply been dumped onto borrowing...

Sorry, but people who pay $0 for national defense and other federal expenditures have no claim to shouldering a "growing tax burden."

So Obama is going to "help" low-income, low-skilled workers by putting more of them on welfare.

He is going to help them by keeping welfare available for when they need it. Most people are on welfare a very short time. And then they move on and very often become productive. See creative destruction is where you go from one state to another (hopefully better) state. To get there things need to change, some level of "destruction" of the current state happens.

Rich people pretty much always make out fine, but poor prople can be very hurt by this process. If you give them a safety net, so they don't lose there house and can still afford food and healthcare, during the transition then they can benefit from the new state of affairs like everyone else. If you don't then they are screwed by the change. Thus you provide them a safety net.

And yes we earmark your and Ray's taxes (taken at gunpoint) for giving to welfare queens, while the rest of our money goes to the people who pop off the welfare rolls after a short time.

Because I'm a firm believer that conversations go so much better when people have points of agreement, I feel I should point out that Bitter Mouse is actually agreeing with you here. Cap and Trade and immigration are harmful to low-income segments of the population. So he's advocating other policies to also be applied to help out.

I refuse to believe that it's "progress" to tell an ever-increasing percentage of the U.S. workforce that the market has no need for them, nor do I believe it's "progress" for an ever-increasing percentage of the population to be receiving means-tested benefits. Frankly, both of these are the exact opposite of progress.

He is going to help them by keeping welfare available for when they need it. Most people are on welfare a very short time. And then they move on and very often become productive. See creative destruction is where you go from one state to another (hopefully better) state. To get there things need to change, some level of "destruction" of the current state happens.

In several recent months, more people have gone on Social Security Disability than have found jobs. Empirical evidence suggests the U.S. economy has had more than enough "destruction" in recent years.

If you give them a safety net, so they don't lose there house and can still afford food and healthcare, during the transition then they can benefit from the new state of affairs like everyone else.

Is this the magical part of "creative destruction" in which laid-off factory workers become architects and software consultants?

Payroll taxes are to fund a future entitlement. Unless you want Social Security to become even more of a welfare program, then counting payroll taxes as "tax burden" is illogical.

Since when does what it is spent on matter for determining if something is a tax or not? If the SS tax was increased then suddenly Grover and his boys would be OK with that, because it is not really a tax? Really?

But they do pay payroll taxes, we have been deficit spending (which is financed by SS trust funds to a large degree - much larger than Chinese borrowing, for example), they also pay state taxes, they likewise pay gas taxes, etc.

Payroll taxes are to fund a future entitlement. Unless you want Social Security to become even more of a welfare program, then counting payroll taxes as "tax burden" is illogical.

Setting aside for a moment that you -- unsurprisingly to say the least -- choose to ignore the other factors, that entitlement trust fund IS financing good chunks of current spending.

Even setting that aside though - I likewise love how you just assume that "50%" automatically means low income folks... Mitt Romney might very well be among that 50% paying no "income tax"!

I refuse to believe that it's "progress" to tell an ever-increasing percentage of the U.S. workforce that the market has no need for them, nor do I believe it's "progress" for an ever-increasing percentage of the population to be receiving means-tested benefits. Frankly, both of these are the exact opposite of progress.

OK. What does that have to do with what we were discussing? The net impact of immigration on society is positive. The net impact on employment is positive, even if some people do suffer unemployment or depressed wages, the total number of employed goes up. The entire point is most welfare is short term, and as the economy benefits from the imigrants more jobs will open up and there will not be an ever increasing percentage.

Since when does what it is spent on matter for determining if somethign is a tax or not? If the SS tax was increased then suddenly Grover and his boys would be OK with that, because it is not really a tax? Really?

I've never, ever suggested the U.S. could get out of its current financial hole via tax cuts alone.

I refuse to believe that it's "progress" to tell an ever-increasing percentage of the U.S. workforce that the market has no need for them

Don't tell me or the government -- tell the "jobs creators"... it's they, not the government, that has essentially decided to "tell" the ever-increasing percentage of the U.S. workforce that it's no longer economically feasible to pay a US seamstress a living wage when kids in Thailand will sew shirts for pennies a day.

Still, I like where you're going with this... the 'market' should serve "us", not vice versa -- right on, brother. Kindly lay out your proposal that forces 'private industry' to pay machinists, seamstresses, factory workers, etc a wage that allows them to do things like pay rent or purchase a modest home, buy groceries, pay for medical emergencies and maybe even send their kids to college.

I will gladly sign onto any program that forces the job creators to do that in exchange for elimination of 'safety nets'.

The net impact of immigration on society is positive. The net impact on employment is positive, even if some people do suffer unemployment or depressed wages, the total number of employed goes up.

The U.S. has millions of low-skilled workers who can't find a job, while there are an estimated 10 million low-skilled illegal immigrants in the U.S. The idea that the latter haven't negatively affected the former is comical. For liberals to simultaneously argue for more low-skilled immigration while screaming about stagnant wages and income inequality is the height of economic idiocy.

The entire point is most welfare is short term, and as the economy benefits from the imigrants more jobs will open up and there will not be an ever increasing percentage.

No, this was true for a while after welfare reform of the '90s, but when more people are going on disability than finding jobs, that puts the lie to the idea that all government assistance is short-term. I've read that most people who go on disability never work again. Disability is the new welfare.

Kindly lay out your proposal that forces 'private industry' to pay machinists, seamstresses, factory workers, etc a wage that allows them to do things like pay rent or purchase a modest home, buy groceries, pay for medical emergencies and maybe even send their kids to college.

Industry would have little choice but to pay higher wages if lax immigration enforcement hadn't allowed 10 or 15 million mostly low-skilled workers to enter the country and undercut market wages.

Now... I do think there's a chance that Gorbachev, absent the Warsaw Pact collapse, had a non-zero chance of essentially putting the USSR on what is essentially China's path towards a quasi-communist-with-capitalist-tones system. Gorbachev was no Andropov, no Brezhnev, and no Chernenko.

He was a legitimate reformer

Gorby's problem was that he was trying to reform the political system ahead of the economic system- his approach was pretty much guaranteed to cause the USSR to collapse- the reason the Warsaw Pact collapsed on him- and he couldn't do anything about it, was that politically the USSR was already collapsing- the SSRs were all acting up to one degree or another- the regional soviets were openly defying Moscow- the Baltic States were acting up at the same time that the East Europe countries were.

The USSR possibly had a window to reform the political system without collapse in the 60s/70s- except the old men at the top were unable to see the need for reform, and indeed were determined to stifle any attempt at political reform- essentially the USSR was doomed Khruschev was ousted in 1964, Brezhnev and Kosygin etc took over, and the political structure was essentially ossified until Gorby took over 20 years later- I mean ossified literally, under Khruschev the rule was that 1/3 of each officials would be replaced very election cycle (prior to Khruschev of course there was tremendous turnover in Government personnel due to Stalin's purges)- after Khruschev- that was it- government turnover at all levels - consisted of people dying of old age getting replaced by whomever was next in line- who by the 780s was likely a geezer himself- an entire generation was effectively shut out of power. In any event the Soviet leaders craved stability above everything else- but stability is an illusion

Is this the magical part of "creative destruction" in which laid-off factory workers become architects and software consultants?

It is the part where they can survive while looking for more work or perhaps go to school. It is where the net surplus to society from immigration turns into more jobs, and through the magic and complexity of the free market those jobs work their way throguh the economy. it is not painless and does not happen overnight. There are winners and losers.

The safety net means the losers are not bit quite so hard. Statistically time on welfare is pretty short. Anecdotally feel free to discuss factory workers doing software engineering*.

* I am in IT, and there are many IT jobs that could be had by former factory workers. Fewer now though, because of off shoring done by your boy Mitt and others. My job is pretty safe from off shoring, but many of the entry level jobs that lead to my job are gone. It means less competition (because fewer people behind me looking for my job), but it is a bad place to be because you need those entry level positions.

The U.S. has millions of low-skilled workers who can't find a job, while there are an estimated 10 million low-skilled illegal immigrants in the U.S. The idea that the latter haven't negatively affected the former is comical. For liberals to simultaneously argue for more low-skilled immigration while screaming about stagnant wages and income inequality is the height of economic idiocy.

I have said that the lower rung has been impacted by immigration. Several times. That does not mean that immigration does not benefit the nation as a whole. Your base assumption that all immigration is low skill immigration is more than a little insulting to immigrants, by the way.

I think we should have more open immigration. A better safety net. Higher minimum wage.

I have said that the lower rung has been impacted by immigration. Several times. That does not mean that immigration does not benefit the nation as a whole. Your base assumption that all immigration is low skill immigration is more than a little insulting to immigrants, by the way.

When did I say "all immigration is low skill immigration"?

I think we should have more open immigration. A better safety net. Higher minimum wage.

Another reminder of why you got out of economics. Good luck reconciling any two of the above, let alone all three.

Over 50 percent of U.S. households pay no federal income taxes whatsoever, but somehow the tax burden has been shifted onto the middle class?

If you make so little money that you pay no income taxes, you aren't part of the middle class. That's not very difficult to understand.

Re-read the above while pretending the statements relate to Obama's birth certificate and are coming from the birthers. It's a hoot.

Ray, how many presidential candidates in the history of the U.S. have been expected to release their birth certificate? Now ask yourself how many have been expected to release their tax returns? Notice a difference? I knew Ray wasn't all that smart, but I didn't expect him to go full birther on us. Pretty pathetic, really.

t's common knowledge that the vast majority of people who go on disability never hold full-time employment again. See Heritage, OECD, et al.

no, it's commonly believed that "the vast majority of people who go on disability never hold full-time employment again."

Assuming you mean Social Security Disability when you say "disability"- then you are correct the vast majority never return to full-time employment.

To get Social Security Disability you are supposed to establish that you have a physical or mental condition that prevents you from engaging in any "substantial gainful activity," and the condition is expected to last at least 12 months or result in death...
61% of Social Security Disability applications are ultimately denied. Of the 39% approved, most of those are approved at the inittial step- the odds of getting an initial determination overturned on appeal is slight...

If you make so little money that you pay no income taxes, you aren't part of the middle class. That's not very difficult to understand.

Then we seem to have a numbers problem. If 50 percent of households pay $0 in federal income taxes but none of them are middle class, then what's the current class distribution in the U.S.? Are 50 percent classified as "poor"?

Yeah, Bitter Mouse, there's no way we can do those things and still maintain the obscene corporate profits and CEO compensation from which the vast majority of Americans will never see any benefit.

Yes, please describe the system in which the U.S. has "open immigration," a bigger and better "safety net," and an enforced higher minimum wage. There's no rational economic model for any two of these things, let alone all three.

It's common knowledge that the vast majority of people who go on disability never hold full-time employment again.

Well that might mean that mostly the right people are going on disability. The standard for social security disability is pretty stringent: if you are able to peform any ordinary job in the country, then you are not disabled. That includes relatively easy to perform jobs like cashier or movie-theater ticket taker. Is it really that surprising that most of the people who are so disabled that they are physically unable to be cashiers are never able to successfully re-enter the workforce?

Industry would have little choice but to pay higher wages if lax immigration enforcement hadn't allowed 10 or 15 million mostly low-skilled workers to enter the country and undercut market wages.

...which is obviously why large segments of manufacturing, the apparel industry, etc - heck, nowadays, even white collar work in areas like IT - have moved to cities with large immigrant populations as opposed to overseas. Oh wait...

Then we seem to have a numbers problem. If 50 percent of households pay $0 in federal income taxes but none of them are middle class, then what's the current class distribution in the U.S.? Are 50 percent classified as "poor"?

Well, quite a few of them pay no federal income tax because they earn all of their money from investments, on which they pay capital gains tax. Many of them are old people who don't pay income tax on their investment and social security income. Many of them are teenagers who work either summer jobs or part time jobs during the school year and get a full refund of their federal income withholding. And yes, many of them are poor. Those would be the ones who don't earn enough from wages to reach the threshold where they pay federal income tax. So I'll amend my earlier statement. If you rely on wages to make ends meet, and your wages are not large enough to qualify you for federal income tax, you are not part of the middle class. Of course, Republicans have no interest in increasing the tax burden on rich Americans who live off of their investment income. They only want to increase taxes on W-2 wage earners so that they'll have "skin in the game" (as if they don't pay all sort of other taxes already). Because the best way to stimulate the economy is to increase the tax burden on the people who spend 100% of their paycheck on consumer goods and to reduce the tax burden on people who shove a nice portion of their paycheck into the bank.

So Obama is going to "help" low-income, low-skilled workers by putting more of them on welfare. Wonderful.

It's actually a really clever plan. The problem with workers is that they have jobs. People with jobs are less dependent on government handouts to survive. So you get rid of the jobs (by undercutting their labor with cheap foreign helots), increase the handouts, and you've got an utterly dependent group of voters. If you can, you make the cheap foreign helots citizens and buy them with handouts too. If not, that's OK, you're still getting cheaper goods and services if you're a party elite. It's not like you have to live in their neighborhoods or send your kids to school with their kids; you're saving a ton on the nanny and the lawn has never looked nicer.

Repeat as necessary until you run out of money for the handouts. Now you're Mexico, but even a quasi-failed state like Mexico can still support a decent group of political and economic elites living high on the hog. It's exactly how I'd run a country myself if I wasn't so committed to helping the underdog.

Is it really that surprising that most of the people who are so disabled that they are physically unable to be cashiers are never able to successfully re-enter the workforce?

I find it very difficult to believe that the huge upsurge in disability claims that occurred when unemployment benefits began to run out was legitimate. Almost 10 million working-age people are so disabled they can't hold any job? Not buying it.

...which is obviously why large segments of manufacturing, the apparel industry, etc - heck, nowadays, even white collar work in areas like IT - have moved to cities with large immigrant populations as opposed to overseas. Oh wait...

This is precisely my point: With fewer and fewer low-skilled jobs in the U.S., why the hell are Dems advocating for more and more low-skilled immigration? It's economically idiotic. The only explanation is Good Face's #765. Otherwise, it makes zero sense to import people who need a bigger and better safety net.

And with that, you give away the game. It's not about exchange of ideas to find the most reasonable end or solution. It's about deciding what you will and will not believe beforehand and then constructing any required "logic" after the fact to support the things you want to be true while "disproving" the things you "refuse to believe."

You are the perfect example of the shallow post-modernism that has eaten American conservatism alive.

Oh, sorry, I forgot BBTF was like a doctoral dissertation, where 2+2 only equals 4 if a citation is appended.

It's common knowledge that the vast majority of people who go on disability never hold full-time employment again. See Heritage, OECD, et al.

Except you're not making a 2+2 case...

You're using 'facts' -- heck, I'll even grant "vast majority" (whatever that means... is that 75%? 90%?) citation unseen -- as dirt clods to be chucked, rather than any sort of cohesive argument.

To wit - you're either extrapolating internally or expecting us to extrapolate from this little factoid that 'people are bilking the system', right?

Well...

How many people are actually on SSDI? 100k? 2 million? 50 million? From a policy perspective, the little dirt clod about people going on SSDI is fairly meaningless until we know whether we just have little cracks that will always be present in any system covering 100s of millions of people - or - whether it's a real problem that needs patching.

This is even before we get into the details about whether people 'permanently' on SSDI are actually legitimate or not.... Heck - we saw big spikes in SSDI claims after Vietnam and it would stand to reason that after 10 years of war with large numbers of servicemen and women returning home sans limbs or with other physical trauma, I would expect an increase in various forms of LTD claims.

It's just a mildly less retarded cousin of the old 'welfare queen' gambit -- I suppose actual data trumps "I heard a story" - but it stills fails in any meaningful way to actually lay out any real case that a problem exists.

Unemployment rates are partly a byproduct of globalization. While globalization has increased the size of the pie, there have been winners and losers. Increased immigration would have substantially the same effect as globalization. One way of blunting the impact is to simply have the winners pay more taxes and redistribute the wealth in a way that the gains from globalization are distributed more evenly across the population.

I'm just restating what Bitter Mouse has been saying over and over, of course.

The issue for me comes down to how this money is spent. Spending money for people to do nothing is an inefficient allocation of those resources. In order for those people to be doing something, the government needs to have something for those people to do. As long as the people receiving benefits are actually doing needed work (or are being educated to do needed work, if such a thing is still possible given how quickly the target moves and how slow education's bullets are), then it's hard to argue with that kind of reallocation of resources. In theory, finding the needed work isn't a problem, but I haven't heard any political candidates come up with solutions. Joe is dead on when he mocks the idea of education as the silver bullet. There are plenty of unemployed college grads (with business degrees no less).

The problem I have with arguing for increased immigration is that the US hasn't dealt with the impact of globalization. Why would you want to increase immigration when that will exacerbate the already unsolved problems caused by globalization? Shouldn't we solve the problems caused by globalization first?

And with that, you give away the game. It's not about exchange of ideas to find the most reasonable end or solution. It's about deciding what you will and will not believe beforehand and then constructing any required "logic" after the fact to support the things you want to be true while "disproving" the things you "refuse to believe."

You are the perfect example of the shallow post-modernism that has eaten American conservatism alive.

Gee, weren't you just complaining about "rhetorical sleights of hand" in #707?

Over $1,100 per month, plus $300 for a spouse, and another ~$350 per child. It's not lavish, but add in Medicare and food stamps, etc., and it probably looks a lot better than most low-skilled jobs that are available.

A wingnut columnist in a wingnut rag quoting a wingnut pundit (Fund) and vote suppression expert (Von Spakovsky). Quite compelling. Oh, and no evidence that any of it would have been stopped by voter ID. Funny that a google search for "Minnesota Felon Vote Fraud" (without the quotes) leads pretty much only to that article or other wingnuts discussing it, except for a report from Nice Polite Republicans which calls it inconclusive.

And he blatantly lies, accusing Democrats of opposing the removal of ineligible voters from the rolls. I'd like to see some proffer evidence that Democrats are opposed to removing ineligible voters from the rolls. Good luck!

Minn is one of the states that allow ex-felons to regain the right to vote after they serve time, plus probation. Also, assuming that all votes by felons went to Al Franken is sorta a ridiculousness accusation. No party has a hold on the convict vote.

This is precisely my point: With fewer and fewer low-skilled jobs in the U.S., why the hell are Dems advocating for more and more low-skilled immigration?

Again with the low skilled. Immigration should be opened up - low skilled, medium skilled and high skilled. And it is not importing people, it is allowing people who want to come here. They want to because the economy, opportunity or whatever is better than where they were. Oddly they are not coming to miss out on jobs that don't exist.

You seem to think there is some limited number of jobs, and by letting immigrants in they will take those jobs, displacing current workers. All those immigrants also create jobs, they start businesses, they buy houses, and furniture and everything else. All of which helps the economy.

The economy is not a zero sum game. Every credible study done shows a net positive impact on the overall economy and even on overall income from immigration. But there are some negative impacts on the low income in society. Which again is why we need a safety net. Good thing all those immigrants are paying taxes so we can afford it.

I agree that voter ID wouldn't have stopped these felons from voting, but this puts the lie to the idea that a relatively small number of people can't swing an election. It's not hard at all to imagine felons went 700 to 300 for Al Franken.

***

Again with the low skilled. Immigration should be opened up - low skilled, medium skilled and high skilled.

Yes, low-skilled is mostly what the U.S. is getting when it comes to illegal immigration. Is this even in dispute?

I've consistently called for more high-skilled immigration. But calling for more low-skilled immigration at a time when 10 percent of the country's workforce is idle is economic insanity.

You seem to think there is some limited number of jobs, and by letting immigrants in they will take those jobs, displacing current workers. All those immigrants also create jobs, they start businesses, they buy houses, and furniture and everything else. All of which helps the economy.

With real unemployment hovering at 10 percent for almost 4 years, it seems like maybe there is "some limited number of jobs."

But there are some negative impacts on the low income in society. Which again is why we need a safety net. Good thing all those immigrants are paying taxes so we can afford it.

As of 2009, 8 million are on SSDI, 2 million are receiving derivative benefits as spouses or children. (2010 CBO report).

With the backlog of applications and the entirety of the process to determine eligibility, the wait for a determination can be over 800 days. That's the longest if you are denied across multiple levels of appeals, etc.

As noted, average monthly payment for 2011 is $1,111.00; or slightly over HHS' poverty level.

I voted against him twice. His love affair with the worst right wing dictators, his anti-environmental tub-thumping, his scandalous failure to act on AIDS, his dog-whistle pandering to racists, his laffer-curve trickle-down hypocrisy, and his obvious lack of engagement on anything beyond sound bites and simplistic catch phrases, were terrible, and his maddening success despite all of it, just made it all the more galling.

President was one the role he was born to play, and he played it very well. But it always seemed to me that there was no "there" there, and the fact that he was later diagnosed with Alzheimers makes me wonder just how early on it began to affect him. I still remember the stories he would tell about things that had supposedly happened, and they turned out to be from the movies.

His great claim to fame was taking down the Red Russians. This, without any credit being given to the generation of bi-partisan support for containment. Maybe SDI did accelerate it, but the fact is that the Russian economic system did not work, and that a lot of what we "knew" about the great Russian Military was flat out wrong. To borrow a phrase with terrible historical antecedents, the Russian Economy was just waiting for someone to kick the door in so the whole rotten structure would come down. Not that we knew it at the time. And, of course, a big part of standing up to the Russians involved training and arming mujahedeen to fight the Russkies in Afghanistan. Which most of us supported at the time. Can you say "blowback"?

And this is again without considering the lawlessness of Iran-Contra, where, in order to help fund a highly questionable right-wing army in Central America in direct violation of the law, the Reagan administration sold weapons to the Mad Mullahs of Iran in the hopes that hostages would be released (while more were taken) -- and then when it was uncovered, the government destroyed documents so all of the facts could not be traced. And of course President Reagan could not recall what had been discussed or what he knew. Convenient thing, that Alzheimers.

How is "open immigration" among low-skilled workers at a time of very high unemployment among low-skilled workers anything but economic insanity? If the very presence of low-skilled workers "creates jobs," as alleged above, then why has unemployment been stuck so high for so long?

So because a country of over 300 million people doesn't have all of their economic woes cured and because you for some reason think the argument is that low skilled workers will create all the jobs the economy needs to get healthy that low skilled immigration is economic insanity?

Yes, that's my position. Inviting more low-skilled workers to a country/economy that has fewer and fewer low-skilled jobs that pay a living wage *and* already suffers from very high unemployment among low-skilled workers is economic insanity.

I see you're in one of your moods. I guess no one would argue about Soriano tonight.

Anyway, under what economic theory is it a good idea to add low-skilled workers during a time of high unemployment among low-skilled workers in a country that has fewer and fewer low-skilled jobs that pay a living wage?

'Bitter Mouse' was complaining about income inequality and wage stagnation at the lower levels of the job market, but then advocated for importing even more low-skilled workers. Basic supply and demand says that's foolish.

There are studies indicating that illegal immigration depresses wages for low skill workers. That's not really in doubt. Supply and demand, you know.

Who has disputed this? Who has said illegal immigration is a great thing and ponies for everyone? Those same studies also say it increases income for others and overall is a benefit to the economy - which should help everyone as a rising tide and all that.

Every change has a disruptive impact. That is the point of education efforts, a safety net and so on. In total the US benefits from immigration.

Other than the impact on low wage workers - and this is the only time conservatives seem to care at all about them - what is wrong with more open immigration?